Q&A Blog: Are Officers ‘Coaching’ Witnesses in Strangulation Cases?
Q: Why do law enforcement officers ask specific questions about strangulation in domestic violence cases?
A: Strangulation is one of the most dangerous forms of domestic violence, often leaving little or no visible evidence while causing severe internal injuries or even delayed fatality. Officers are trained to ask pointed questions like, “Did the assailant put their hands around your neck?” or “Did you feel lightheaded or have trouble breathing?” These questions are essential to identify whether a victim experienced strangulation and to ensure their immediate safety and proper medical evaluation.
Q: How could these questions be interpreted as ‘coaching’ by the defense?
A: When officers use direct and specific language about strangulation during interviews, it can sometimes appear as though they are leading the witness to describe an assault in those terms. For instance, if an officer asks, “Did you feel like you couldn’t breathe?” without the victim initially mentioning any such sensation, it might give the impression that the officer is suggesting a narrative rather than eliciting one.
In a legal context, as defense attorneys, we can argue that such inquiries create an appearance of “coaching” the victim to say they were strangled, even if the intent is simply to gather critical details.
Q: Why are these specific questions necessary for law enforcement?
A: Strangulation often doesn’t leave visible marks, and victims may not even realize how serious their injuries are. Symptoms like difficulty breathing, dizziness, or temporary unconsciousness are telltale signs of strangulation that might not be volunteered without prompting. From the prosecution’s perspective, asking targeted questions ensures that officers identify strangulation cases and document them properly for victim safety and legal proceedings.
Q: How might this line of questioning benefit the defense?
A: As defense attorneys, we can use the specificity of these questions to cast doubt on the victim’s testimony. If a victim initially provides vague or nonspecific details, and later statements reflect the exact language of the officer’s questions, we can argue that the victim’s account was influenced by the officer rather than based on their independent recollection. This can undermine the credibility of the victim and raise reasonable doubt about the charges.
For example, if a victim initially says, “I just felt scared,” and then later says, “I couldn’t breathe,” after being asked about difficulty breathing, this change can be framed as the product of suggestive questioning rather than genuine memory.
Q: How can defense attorneys challenge this in court?
A: There are several ways to challenge this perceived “coaching”:
- Review Body Camera Footage:
- Carefully analyze how the officer’s questions were phrased. Were they open-ended or leading? Highlight any moments where the officer introduced specific terms like “strangulation” or “difficulty breathing.”
- Cross-Examination of the Officer:
- Question the officer on their training and whether they were taught to use specific language that could influence a victim’s statements.
- Point out inconsistencies between the victim’s initial statements and their later ones.
- Highlight Lack of Independent Detail:
- Emphasize in closing arguments that the victim’s account mirrors the officer’s questioning, suggesting the narrative may have been shaped rather than organically reported.
- Leverage Expert Testimony:
- Consider calling an expert witness to explain how suggestive questioning can influence memory and testimony, particularly in high-stress situations like domestic violence incidents.
Q: What specific strategies can help clients accused of strangulation?
A: In addition to the techniques above, consider the following:
- Medical Records: If the prosecution relies on medical evidence, scrutinize it for inconsistencies. Lack of physical findings like petechiae (tiny blood vessel ruptures) or bruising can be critical.
- Witness Statements: Compare all versions of the victim’s statements to identify where officer questioning may have influenced the narrative.
- Training Manuals: Request or subpoena law enforcement training materials to show how officers are instructed to ask leading questions about strangulation.
Q: Does this mean officers are intentionally coaching witnesses?
A: Not necessarily. The training officers receive is aimed at ensuring they recognize the signs of strangulation—a potentially deadly act that might otherwise be overlooked. However, the perception of coaching can arise when questions are too specific or leading. For defense attorneys, this perceived coaching presents an opportunity to challenge the reliability of the investigation.
Q: What’s the takeaway for defense attorneys?
A: Understanding how law enforcement is trained to inquire about strangulation provides a valuable tool for building a defense. By carefully analyzing how these questions were asked and how the victim’s narrative evolved, we can create doubt about the integrity of the investigation and the reliability of the victim’s statements. This strategy can be pivotal in protecting our clients and ensuring a fair trial.
Strangulation is a serious and often underreported form of domestic violence, but the way law enforcement approaches these cases can significantly impact the outcome. As defense attorneys, recognizing and leveraging the nuances of these investigative techniques is key to advocating effectively for our clients.